Greenwood Talks CAPTAIN PIKE Role - Mania.com
HomeREGISTER HomeRSS 
HomeHOME



Movie News

29 Comments | Add
 

Rate & Share:
 

Related Links:
 

Info:

Greenwood Talks CAPTAIN PIKE Role

By Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor     November 15, 2007
Source: Wilson Morales at BlackFilm.com


Bruce Greenwood in Disney's EIGHT BELOW(2006).
© Walt Disney

Wilson Morales over at Blackfilm had a chance to talk shop with thespian Bruce Greenwood right after he was cast as Capt. Pike in the upcoming film. When asked which role would be tougher, his JFK role in Thirteen Days or his Pike in Star Trek, his answer seemed somewhat surprising. He also mentions that the story is very different then previous Trek films to date, something which is drawing the anger of someone else in the online trek community. You'll see an example to that in next part of this article, something not relating to the Greenwood interview.

Here's what Bruce had to say about the new gig to Blackfilm;

BF: Which do you think is tougher to play, JFK or Pike?

BG: It’s riskier to do Pike than it was to do Kennedy because on a certain level Kennedy is so huge on the public’s mind that nobody expects you to do it perfectly. I think the Trekkies are more likely to have expectations that are cut marble.

BF: Have you started to do your research on the character?

BG: I’ve got a lot of homework to do. Having said that, the script, which I can’t talk about, is pretty good and quite different from the last few Star Trek movies.

Click the link above for the story...

Alright, now it's time to pass along someone inside the Trek community who seems very angry about something relating to this next STAR TREK adventure. Scooper Metalwater passed along this Trek Web story which has STAR TREK: NEW VOYAGES producer and star, James Cawley, lashing out at Paramount and JJ Abrams. He claims he saw the new design for the next Enterprise NCC 1701 and he's not very pleased about it because it doesn't match up with the original 1701 model.

Here's what he had to say about the new ship design.

"I have seen the New REBOOTED Enterprise, I have Friends in the right places! At any rate, I don't like it. It is supposed to be NCC-1701, no bloody A,B,C,D or E! and it sure does not look like the 1701 I grew up with!" he said

"I just don't agree with changing such iconic designs that are so ingrained in pop culture, it is really needless."

"I just don't want the production design radically changed. I see Matt Jefferies designs as "TIMELESS", and as "Pure Science Fiction", I feel the Big E as designed by Matt deserves it's day on the big screen. I personally Hope that this film makes alot of money for the studio, and that Star Trek is around for many more years because of it. If it fails the alternative of Trek's Loss would Suck. All that aside, I do not have to be a fan of the production design. I have seen what was purported to be the final design of the New Enterprise, and I don't like the changes."

"Re-imagining or rebooting IS changing what Star Trek is." he said "I am not against the recasting at all. But Star Trek is NOT broken, it does Not need to be fixed or REIMAGINED or anthing of the sort. It needs a great story with a Heart in the familar trappings of it's universe. What we are going to get is J.J. Abrams take on Trek, NOT Gene's Trek, not the one we have all been enjoying for all these years, I am sure many will enjoy it, and Good for them. I do not wish the producers will, I simply am not a fan of rebooting or reimaging, something so iconic as Trek."

MOVIES REVIEWS

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 1 - 10 of 29
1 2 3 >  >>  
DarkJedi 11/15/2007 1:28:13 AM
Alright, now that the article is live, I'll put my thoughts right here. Nothing about Greenwood. He's great. But the James Cawley part. I seriously debated even publishing this story because every day, some new person who has a hand in something TREK related sounds off at Trek Web or Trek Movie...I don't blame those sites because after all, they are sites relating to Star Trek and this movie gives them a chance to have .....news... But seriously... Why should I give two damns about James Cawley or what he has to say about this? He's not happy about the NCC 1701 being changed? Okay, what did he think was going to happen here? Paramount and JJ Abrams would break out the original 1701 model and have it blazing through space in the original 60's "look"?? Keep dreaming, Mr. Cawley. Second, why should we even care if you're angered?? Hell, how do we know what he claims is true? That he actually saw the new design for the NCC 1701 for the next film? The Harlan Ellison frustration, I can understand. He had a hand in the TOS storyline which may come into play with this movie...I can understand his stake in the film if that is the plotline. But Cawley's anger? Personally, I don't give a damn. He plays Captain Kirk on this "web-series" New Voyages...Does he really think the principals involved with the real TOS production are thrilled with his New Voyages storylines and character depictions? The majority of Star Trek fans most likely like Shatner's Kirk..Not some Cawley Kirk on a web-based series.. As I say, I totally understand the Star Trek focused websites letting people like this "speak out" on the upcoming film. It's what they do and it's "news" for them to publish. I'm reaching my limit on it though...The only people whom are newsworthy in having anything to say about this new film should be the people involved with TOS, Gene Rod's family and perhaps people involved with TNG since this is placing the final nail in the coffin for their films..Those are people worth mentioning in "news" relating to the new Trek film. I guess there's some irony here. Here I am stating this right after I included it in the article above, right? :) I guess I'm just saying from now on...If Gene himself isn't coming back from the dead to say something, I won't be mentioning anyone else's take on the next film unless their thoughts actually "deserve" to be mentioned...i.e TOS crew/staff...TNG crew/staff...Gene's family...or this film's crew/cast.
Flat 11/15/2007 6:00:11 AM
Well that's not really fair that your take is the last one we have to sit through, Jarrod... But I think you made some good points. And I actually read your whole comment. Normally I skip over comments that run that long, which demonstrates that I agree with you: everyone has an opinion and it's not always news. I don't mean to change the subject, but did anyone see the theatrical presentation of the Original Series episode "The Menagerie" on Tuesday night? Tonight is the encore presentation.
ThemanG01 11/15/2007 6:06:10 AM
The type of person who runs a Trek fan/news site is the exact type of person who isn't likely to be happy about anything involved in any kind of reboot. Ignoring their opinions is like ignoring extreme and anomolous results when figuring an average.
PopeyesBitch 11/15/2007 6:22:00 AM
Necromomitron, you've got a good point---"The type of person who runs a Trek fan/news site is the exact type of person who isn't likely to be happy about anything involved in any kind of reboot." PEOPLE, YOU HAVE A CHOICE: YOU CAN PAY YOUR 8 OR 9 BUCKS TO SEE STAR TREK NEXT DECEMBER, OR NOT, THEN DECIDE WHETHER THE FILM DID JUSTICE!...IT'S THAT SIMPLE! On a softer note, Bruce Greenwood is one of the coolest actors out there...I remember him from waaaaayyy back when he did his stint on the NBC television series, "St. Elsewhere", and he did a good job playing Dennis Wilson on that 1990's Beach Boys movie made for tv.
Dazzler 11/15/2007 6:46:31 AM
The ship could look different because it's out of dock and maybe they change it to Classic ship style down the line? Could be a lot of reasons it looks different. Look at the crappy Enterprise series version. Nobody was up in arms over that.
silversurfer 11/15/2007 7:29:09 AM
I agree with Jarrod's comments, it would be a waste of time and typing to have everything that these people have to say written down other than on a fan based Star Trek website...they'll never be happy with any of it anyway... As far as the 1701 being changed, who really cares? There have been so many different takes on the ship that a Star Trek crew have that it doesn't matter now... Give Abrams a chance to either pass/fail to determine if he really makes the cut or not...I can guarantee that these same people who are complaining about that will have something to say about something else later on... Greenwood is going to be cool as Pike..he's a good actor and understands what this means to the legion of fans that are following this....
evilron 11/15/2007 7:38:42 AM
First off, I can't wait to see Greenwood as Pike. He is a great actor. Secondly, as long as someone has brought up Ellison; here's my two cents. He needs to make up his mind. While he did write the original screenplay for 'City on the Edge of Forever' and loves to take ALL the credit for it being perhaps the best episode of TOS. He is also, however, forever bitching about how his screenplay was so heavily rewritten that it is not even his own work anymore.
xpaladinx45 11/15/2007 8:39:03 AM
2 things i want to point out about what this guy said. But first off let me say i've enjoyed the trek movies, but am at heart a SW fan. I love Captain Kirk and TOS crew. No one can replace them perfectly. I still thing starting "over" is a good idea though. Now, that dude mentions "..if it fails the alternative of Trek's loss..." I seriously almost choked on my coca cola when i read that. While I've enjoyed to some extent, all the trek movies (aside from insurrection) but realistically, almost all of them have been "failures" by hollywood standards when it comes to big bucks. And the second thing, as Jarrod said....like they are going to have a 60's style enterprise running around. I'll admit i've been wondering exactly what they will attempt to do with the design, but I have to admit i've always found the original enterprise ridiculous in appearance (movie versions were fine for me however)
snallygaster 11/15/2007 9:00:26 AM
Ellison has a pseudonym (Cordwainer Bird) which he uses instead of his own name whenever he feels his work has been too compromised. I never understood why he didn't use that in the City on the Edge of Forever credits, given his famous conflict over how much his script had been changed. For those unfamiliar with it, Ellison did publish the original script which is now out of print but readily available as a used book. The script itself is just as good as the one which was filmed, but undeniably too dark to be consistant with Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. It probably would have worked in Deep Space Nine. As for Cawley's assertion that this will be Abram's Trek rather than Gene's Trek - well, it hasn't been Gene's Trek for quite some time. Bennett, Berman, Piller, Behr, Braga, Taylor and others have been at the helm of Trek for quite some time. We've been getting their versions of Trek which has arguably not always been consistant with Roddenberry's. And while there have been some missteps, and the franchise was eventually run into the ground, for the most part I'm glad that they deviated from Roddenberry's vision, and I'm looking forward to Abrams spin on it.
Wiseguy 11/15/2007 9:34:30 AM
Snallygaster, Gene was the one that didn't allow Ellison to use his pseudonym. I don't think he liked the meaning of it which is, one who makes shoes for birds. Now, I always loved the original series, not a big fan of the spin-offs nor most of the movies, which were mostly just average. So I do think this franchise is broken, which is why I'm glad JJ is rebooting it. Hopefully it'll be a kickass film which will allow for many more sequels. And continuity doesn't have to be disrupted, we can just have a lot of untold adventures of the young crew.
1 2 3 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.

MOVIES NEWS UPDATES

MORE CONTENT BY JARROD SARAFIN, NEWS EDITOR

RELATED CONTENT

POPULAR TOPICS